Marriage Protection Act -- A Suitable Short-Term Alternative to FMA?

by Jody Brown
July 16, 2004

(AgapePress) - Several conservative Christian groups are backing legislation that would prevent federal judges from hearing cases that challenge the constitutionality of states' Defense of Marriage Acts, a tactic being used by homosexual activists seeking the legalization of same-sex "marriage."

It is called the Marriage Protection Act (H.R. 3313) and it is sponsored by Indiana Republican Congressman John Hostettler, who has enlisted the support of 48 of his House colleagues for the measure. The bill was passed by the House Judiciary Committee earlier this week; according to Hostettler, the full House will vote on the Act next week.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress authority to remove issues from the jurisdiction of federal courts. Associated Press notes it is the same power used two years ago by Senator Tom Daschle to expedite the thinning of forests in his home state of South Dakota. An attractive aspect of the legislation, says Hostettler, is that because the bill proposes a statute and not a constitutional amendment, the process for protecting traditional marriage from DOMA challenges would move much more swiftly.

Lori Waters is executive director of Eagle Forum, one of the groups backing the Marriage Protection Act. She explains what she sees an advantage of Hostettler's bill over a Federal Marriage Amendment.

"The congressman's bill can be passed by a simple majority, can be signed by the president, and can happen tomorrow if Congress were to step forward and do it," she says. In contrast, she says, a constitutional amendment requires a long-term strategy because it requires a two-thirds vote by both house of Congress and ratification by three-fourths (38) of the states.

"[That would] take several years to accomplish," she points out. 'But in order to protect DOMA today, we need the congressman's bill [H.R. 3313] passed immediately."

A Raging Fire
Another backer of the Marriage Protection Act is the Culture and Family Institute, which is affiliated with Concerned Women for America. At a news conference on Thursday, CFI director Robert Knight noted that since its passage in 1996, the federal DOMA has acted as "an essential barrier" to those who have tried to use the courts to force states to abandon their policies protecting traditional marriage.

Knight reminded his listeners that when the DOMA was passed, its opponents argued the law wasn't necessary -- and now that DOMA may be vulnerable, the same criticism is being leveled at Hostettler's bill. But the Marriage Protection Act, he says, is "clear-cut."

"Homosexual activists have threatened to go to federal court to have DOMA struck down," he pointed out. "H.R. 3313 tells federal judges to keep their hands off this vital piece of federal law."

And as for those lawmakers who still argue marriage protection legislation is unnecessary at this time, he had this analogy about the great Chicago fire.

"We're told by pro-homosexual lawmakers that we should just wait until a federal judge dispenses with DOMA. In fact, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin said that the other day," the CFI leader said. "You know, if Dick Durbin had been fire chief back in 1871 when Mrs. O'Leary's cow knocked over the lantern, he would have said: 'Well, let's wait until it burns down the whole block before we get involved.'"

Meanwhile -- despite the fact that Senator Wayne Allard's Federal Marriage Amendment bill was unable to get pushed through the Senate this week -- many pro-family leaders continue to support its passage and are focusing their efforts on the House, which is scheduled to consider that measure in September. At least one of those leaders was encouraged by the FMA debate, which concluded with a 48-50 cloture vote that effectively shelved the bill.

Phil Burress, president of the Cincinnati-based Citizens for Community Values, notes that during the debate only one senator -- Massachusetts' Ted Kennedy -- voiced support for homosexual marriage. "That, alone, is huge," Burress says.

According to the CCV president most of the other opposing senators confirmed their support for traditional marriage but did not feel the issue was serious enough to justify a constitutional amendment. In addition, many of those who ultimately voted against cloture stated they would support an amendment measure if DOMA -- at either the federal or state level -- were to be struck down by a judge. Burress expects that to occur somewhere down the road soon.

"That was a concession that I did not expect," Burress says in reference to the senators' qualified endorsement of the amendment idea. Consequently, he is optimistic 67 Senate votes for a Federal Marriage Amendment is attainable.

"I feel confident that we will have no problem getting the 19 votes that will turn this around," he says.